Steam 설치
로그인
|
언어
简体中文(중국어 간체)
繁體中文(중국어 번체)
日本語(일본어)
ไทย(태국어)
Български(불가리아어)
Čeština(체코어)
Dansk(덴마크어)
Deutsch(독일어)
English(영어)
Español - España(스페인어 - 스페인)
Español - Latinoamérica(스페인어 - 중남미)
Ελληνικά(그리스어)
Français(프랑스어)
Italiano(이탈리아어)
Bahasa Indonesia(인도네시아어)
Magyar(헝가리어)
Nederlands(네덜란드어)
Norsk(노르웨이어)
Polski(폴란드어)
Português(포르투갈어 - 포르투갈)
Português - Brasil(포르투갈어 - 브라질)
Română(루마니아어)
Русский(러시아어)
Suomi(핀란드어)
Svenska(스웨덴어)
Türkçe(튀르키예어)
Tiếng Việt(베트남어)
Українська(우크라이나어)
번역 관련 문제 보고
But now here's a glitch: if you liberate Venice it will not become an independent city again, but it will be a puppet city forever.
Once a CS becomes Austrian OR Venician, the CS loses its status AS a CS; they are now a WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDARY, RELIGATED TO A PROVINCIAL CITY .
There IS no 'liberation' for those subservient ex-CSs, they will be in somebody's Empire .
wouldn't be very fun if you bought a city state and somebody just liberated it and gained a free ally afterwards.
As a Leading Advocate for "RISK"style Super-Wide play, I see those po'boy former CSs as Oppertunities for Advancing Our Cause in the persuit of Victory; even though they DO cost time and effort to bring around, I just love how they contribute to the Hammer Races []
setlers are much easier to come by than MoW's and venice can't exactly "liberate" your cities so i see no reason for you to be able to liberate venice's cities.
venice taking over a city with a merchant is the equivilant of them making a setler and creating a city where the city state would have otherwise been.
It is not a military takeover and thus you cannot liberate it.
similarily, if you produced a settler and settled it in venice's vicinity they could not turn your city into a city state ally.
In practical format, being able to liberate venice's city states would basicly allow a warmonger to go around and claim free city state allies which would make venice trash tier.
AFAIK if venice decides to conquer a CS using military force you can still liberate the city state.
The deciding difference is that you use military force to conquer a city state while venice uses a great merchant to buy the city state.
You can only liberate a city that has been taken by military force. Venice and austria does not take cities with military force when using their UA's and UU's.
So what?
I'm questioning the crux of your argument, because there's no rule saying a video game rule can't be altered or broken. It doesn't matter if it's "not a good Civilization" or if you don't like it for whatever reason.
It's basically like complaining that knights in Chess move in an L shape. None of the other pieces move like that! What's the point of a system being in play when a knight can just jump over a pawn and take my queen!?
Every Civ has different abilities that change their playstyle. I really don't understand what you're not getting about this, but I'm not gonna frustrate myself trying to wallop you about the head with reasoning when you're clearly very devoted to... whatever your stance is. I guess that everything should be the same, 'cuz variety is frightening? I dunno.